2016 Bodily 532 Bodily

A

Maximum available (prosecution) and friendly (public trial)

Attorney B

July 14, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000. Where the Defendant does not pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

The defendant and the victim C(65 years of age) are the members of the Ecom Association in the Seo-gu of Gwangju, Seo-gu, who are in conflict with each other in ideology and monetary issues.

On January 1, 2016, at around 16:40 on December 22, 2016, the Defendant, at the entrance of the above Escopian, laid down a scopic scopher, etc. requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment, such as cutting down the arms and scophers, scoping the ebbbage, etc., in the process of protesting and resisting the installation of a set.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Video CDs;

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the above defendant's act constitutes self-defense or self-defense.

The term "self-defense" under the Criminal Act refers to a reasonable act to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of a claim where it is impossible to preserve a claim by legal procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007). To recognize a certain act as self-defense, the act is designed to protect the current infringement of one's own or another's legal interests, and is reasonable. Therefore, it does not constitute legitimate self-defense. Whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and type and degree of legal interests infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007).

Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the instant injury cannot be deemed to fall under the Defendant’s act of self-defense, since it cannot be deemed that the instant injury constitutes an act of self-defense to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of performing the Defendant’s towing activities, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute “self-defense” and cannot be deemed as falling under social reasonableness and imminent risk.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judge Sun-ho